Thanks Ian,
How about that we agree to communicate? Let's suppose that we state at the
outset that each party is committed to understanding and seeking to be
understood by the other party? Many times, I feel that a big word is used
for precision because we don't want to use too many words.
Ian, I really believe we have a fear of communication. Don't say too much.
Be seen and not heard. A fool uttereth all his knowledge. And so forth.
Something that is interesting in the communication of the internet, is that
it is much more dynamic. In a book or a paper, the audience must be entirely
passive. This is not the case with this new medium. We have the leisure of
the written word coupled with the feedback of the spoken word. I said
leisure, because, as you say I can think about it, look at it, ask a friend
about it, and so forth. And then, I can come back to you for clarification.
But with the addition of feedback, I can ask for clarity. However, no one
wants to ask another person what a word means. "Go look that up in a
dictionary" the teacher would say.
I saw the former CEO of Netscape in an interview the other day. The
interviewer used a word the CEO (his name escapes me) did not know, and the
CEO said very unselfconsciously, "I don't know what that word means, could
you tell me?" That CEO was able to set aside his fear of looking dumb, in
order to communicate.
But shouldn't the burden of communication be on the communicator? Shouldn't
the communicator attempt to put the audience at ease and make his point?
Precision in language is especially important in a static communication. But
in a dynamic communication feedback allows for clarity. So, if I am unclear
or ambiguous, I can count on you to point that out. Then I can explain
myself further. And, I depend on you to help me express my ideas, and I
depend on you to help me further them so that we can grow in knowledge
together.
However, the present state of internet communication is combative. We argue
with each other incessantly to one-up the other guy and win the debate with
the big words.
My points are:
1. The burden of listener comprehension is on the speaker
2. The internet allows for feedback
3. Communication should be a cooperative effort
4. Fear should be removed from the exchange
5. We should worry more about too little communication than too much
communication
Your point is that is important to use a precise word.
So if we communicated, we might agree to this: One should always use the
most precise and easiest to understand words.
What do you think?
>>Nice post.
We do have to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater
though.
Precision in words has it's place too. Using the exactly correct words
helps when someone _wants_ to understand. Using more loosely
constructed phrases to illustrate is great but can leave people not
*quite* getting the point.
Which is worse?
I have found myself getting irritated by lots of large words and
dismissing a debate only to find that, at a later date (emotionally
disengaged), there is a lot of validity to the "other" case.
It's a big big world, as the song says. There is very little that can
be said which is scientifically "wrong". We can find a illustration to
make nearly any point seem correct. Certainly that any non-delusional
human being might hold to be their "truth".
Agree to differ I guess. Make your point, take their point and see
what time and thought can do with them.
regards,
Ian<<
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:47 BST